|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 10 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
How Many Victims?:
Archive through 10 November 2002
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:42 pm |        | Rich,
I don't know why you want to portray my ribbing the people who say there's a minimum of only three ripper victims as some horrible insult. I made a joke, stated an opinion and corrected myself to say, yes, minimum of three victims. I think you are completely overreacting to try to twist this into a slur.
But as long as you want to bring up modus operandi and signature, that would make it a minimum of four victims. It's only by splitting off a victim whose killing had the same MO and signature due to other considerations (focusing on specific details of the MO instead of the general MO) that someone could come up with only three.
Some may choose to believe in the posssibility of a copycat murderer (and there may well be one or more for all anyone knows), but once you split off one of the main four victims you might as well split off all of them and say there was no serial killer, just a series of different people killing in nearly exactly the same way. (Although some of the victims not in the main set of four or five could have been killed by copycats who only went for throat slashes, that's quite reasonable.)
If you are horribly offended by these comments, that's your own choice, but please spare us the hystrionics.
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 06:04 pm | | Stuart,
Michael Conlon has some intriguing essays under the Dissertations section of this site that discuss possible ripper activities in America (New York/New Jersey and Texas or Lousianna, if memory serves me), the Carribean and elsewhere. If Jack were a sailor on a cattle boat (Frenchy suspect), or some one else who travelled (people toss out the names of Tumblety, Maybrick, and so forth) then he could have done these killings.
Someone here also put forth the theory that the various blotchy/sunburned faced people mentioned in some reports (MJK and Ada Wilson, primarily) were all the same person, the true killer, who confessed on his deathbed in South America to a string of killings pretty much at every port between there and London.
So there are lots of potential other killings to link to, but most seem like run of the mill murders that only gain ripper-like qualities due to news media hype (Carrie Brown being notable as a possible exception). More research in these areas would be helpful, and, should they not pan out, at least they'd be an interesting look at killings that aren't as notorious as the ones in London around the same time.
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 06:18 pm | | Jennifer-
Certainly if one wanted to one could easily get 15 possible ripper victims. The victims page on this sites lists a total of 18 (well, 17 really, as Fairy Fay didn't exist). And there are other victims not listed on the casebook victims page that get mentioned as possibilities as well.
Scott Medine has, if I remember correctly, a young boy killed in December of 1888 as a victim or potential victim for his Jack the Ripper theory. His book isn't out yet, but his criminology background and the promise for some interesting new twists mean this one could be a lot more interesting than other recent ripper-themed book releases.
Kitty Ronan, though two decades after the Autumn of Terror, was a prostitute killed by a seeming customer directly upstairs to MJK's old digs via a nasty throat slash. If you believe the ripper was a long time serial killer who was never caught then linking this killing has some intriguing possibilities.
And if you go with the Jack as world traveller theory there are all the victims around the world that were rumored to be ripper-like, as mentioned in my post above.
If you dig through these message boards you'll find lots of interesting tidbits like these. You can also do a keyword search if yo are looking for something specific.
Dan |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 06:22 pm | | David O'F is correct. "Fairy Fay" never existed; she was a combination of contemporary press confusion and creative writing in the post-war period.
I think the name CMD was looking for is Annie Millwood. The attack on her, which took place in February 1888, was not fatal but for those looking for 'progression' in the MO, the incident is nonetheless of interest. Personally I do see similarities in this attack to the one made on Martha Tabram.
Few details of Mrs. Millwood's case have survived, but she is discussed in some of the better books, such as Sugden.
Regards, V. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 03:51 am | | As a matter of interest regarding the 'December 1887 victim', later named by journalist Terence Robertson in Reynold's News as 'Fairy Fay' (in 1950), she did exist but was not a murder victim.
One of Emma Smith's friends, who gave evidence at her inquest in April 1888, was one Margaret Hames. At the inquest Hames stated that she had been attacked in a similar fashion to Emma Smith, in the same area, in December 1887. The injuries sustained by Hames were so serious that she was admitted to the Whitechapel infirmary, with chest and facial injuries, on December 8, 1887 and was not released until until two days after Boxing Day 1887. Hence, she is undoubtedly the 'Christmas 1887 victim'.
Then in September 1888 when the series of Whitechapel murders was recognised a mysterious 'Christmas' or 'Boxing Day' victim began to appear in press reports, usually to the exclusion of Emma Smith. When writing of the murders in 1950 Robertson called this 'unknown Whitechapel victim' 'Fairy Fay', probably from the popular song that runs "Fare thee well my Fairy Fay..." which meant a wanton or abandoned woman. A reading of Robertson's piece reveals that he was not too accurate with his facts and he appeared to gild his story where it suited him. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 04:50 am | | Thanks for correcting that particularly sloppy poste of mine, Stewart. Of course, the fact is that there was an attack, so "Fairy Fay" must have existed and is therefore a possible entry in the list being compiled above. That the assault was non-fatal (like several others in said list), barely reported at the time and that the victim remained unknown to us until your work with Nick Connell in the late 1990s are all irrelevant to the issue.
Does anybody else ever look at their previous contributions and wonder how they came to write them?
Regards, V. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 09:35 am | | Dan,
"Someone here also put forth the theory that the various blotchy/sunburned faced people mentioned in some reports (MJK and Ada Wilson, primarily) were all the same person, the true killer, who confessed on his deathbed in South America to a string of killings pretty much at every port between there and London."
I think you are talking about John Anderson. IMHO, a very interesting suspect.
From a post by Christoper T George, Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 07:23 pm, Ripper Victims (General Discussion).
The one suspect that I can think of who matches the description of the man with the carrotty mustache seen with Mary Jane Kelly is the less well-known suspect John Anderson, a sailor who was the subject of an article by Nick Connell in Ripperana 25, July 1998. I personally find this sailor an intriguing suspect and plan to do some more work on him.
Connell reprints the text of an article that appeared in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper on October 18, 1896 in which Anderson is said to have confessed to the murders on his deathbed in Chile, South America, in April 1895. The story was told to Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper by James Brame, a shipmate of Anderson's aboard the sailor's last ship, the barque Annie Speer. Brame said that that Anderson was "about thirty-eight years old, and was a fine, well-set up man with a bearing almost military. In complexion he was fair, his hair being red; he wore a moustache and a slight beard, and his face was much pitted with the smallpox."
This description thus vaguely matches the man with Mary Jane Kelly seen walking up the passageway to 13 Miller's Court by Mary Ann Cox at a quarter to twelve on the night of the murder and described by Cox as being "A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand. . . . [He wore a] round hard billycock. . . He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache." (Kelly inquest testimony as reported in The Daily Telegraph, November 13, 1888.)
Again, according to Brame in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, "Anderson, who had obtained a knowledge of surgery in the United States Navy, through acting as a hospital assistant, had been robbed and almost ruined by a low woman in London. He brooded on this, and at length resolved to be revenged as far as he could on the whole class. He had shipped in the weekly boats running between Rotterdam and London, but when he determined to carry out his vengeance he left these, and having a little money took lodgings at a quiet farm-like house near Bromley, where he passed as a ship's watchman, engaged at night work in the docks. He would leave his lodgings in the evening, and make his way to the Whitechapel district where he committed the terrible deeds as he found opportunity. The knife he used was similar to that used by slaughtermen. He had found a confederate in his awful work, and it was this fact that enabled him to evade capture. The confederate would wait at a spot appointed with a clean smock, which Anderson at once drew over his blood-stained garments, so avoiding any suspicious appearance. It is significant, if the story be true, that Anderson described himself as terribly frightened after each deed was committee, but immediately before the murders as being filled with an insane fury that made him careless of everything. Two days before his death Anderson was delirious, and kept screaming out and jumping up in bed, with cries of 'There's another! How she bleeds!'" After his death, the man was buried in the necropolis in Iquique, Chile.
There is more to the story but those are the essentials.
I wonder if Chris was able to do more work on Mr. Anderson.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 11:41 am | | Stewart,
Thanks for your correction. Sure enough, there's Margaret Hames in "Ultimate Companion," right at the beginning of chapter one. I'd missed it.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 06:03 pm | | Hi all,
Nothing I wrote could be construed as "histrionic" by any reasonable reader.
One of the posters remarked that anyone who believes there were only three victims needs to study the case more closely and that he couldn't understand why anyone with such a position should be taken seriously.
I have no idea how many victims the Whitechapel murderer claimed. I oppose the notion that the opinions of esteemed researchers and authors who believe there may have been only three victims should be so readily dismissed.
The victim in question here seems to be Kelly. I have no idea if she was slain by the Whitechapel murderer. But there are strong reasons both for and against her candidacy. The Kelly murder was quite different than the others in the series in about half a dozen ways (which I will not bore everyone with recounting again here).
There is a plausible explanation for those differences - that the locale of the murder was the determining factor. Still, this is conjecture. And, indeed, the locale of the murder itself is one of the important differences.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 08:45 pm | | Rich,
The bit about researchers needing to study closer was a joke (are you familiar with what LOL means?). But if you want to be offended and exaggerate it into an attack upon ripperologists in general, hey, whatever floats your boat.
The differences between the MJK killing and the others are superficial. Theories that try to exaggerate them into serious differences that show a different killer at work shouldn't be taken seriously. That's not an insult against everything else that particular researcher may have done, it's just a recognition that some theories don't make sense no matter who puts them forward.
Dan |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 02:12 am | | Dan,
We have to agree to disagree. I do not believe in the ad hominem approach to examining evidence (ie, the person involved is pushing a theory I disagree with therefore his analysis must be flawed).
Stewart Evans has suggested that MJK might not be a victim of the Whitechapel murderer. He has given his reasons why - reasons I find very compelling. And, it should be noted, Evans has never said categorically that MJK was not a Whitechapel murder victim - only that it is possible she was not. Whether that in any way supports or refutes his Tumblety theory is irrelevant to the facts of the case.
You may choose to classify the differences as superficial. When the killer changes his MO and signature I think its significant.
On a personal note, I apologize if I have come off as easily offended. Those involved in this case frequently have an almost religious faith in certain "truths" that are nothing more than theories. To challenge those theories is often to invite hostility and derision - even if it is mere satire.
So, when I suggest that Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim, I expect to be called either a knave or a heretic. It's the same reaction I received some years ago when I and others suggested that Stride may not have been a victim of the Whitechapel murderer.
By the way, my personal view is that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were definitely murdered by the Whitechapel killer. Kelly probably was. Stride possibly.
Rich |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 02:57 am | | Apropos the above exchange I would make the following observations.
To categorically accept the 'canonical five' victims without question indicates a closed mind not willing to accept other possibilities. Unless a murderer is caught where a series of killings is involved it is dangerous to assume that any one of the murders is actually by the same hand as the rest. The best indicator we may have is modus operandi, which in itself possibly gives us our clearest idea of which murders are Ripper killings.
Unfortunately, over the years the 'canonical five' seem to have become set in stone and those who seek to 'enhance' the killer by boosting his tally, rather than reducing it, do not help. Alex Chisholm contributed an excellent argument to my first book as to why Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim and why presuming that she definitely was may obscure the truth. I am sure that Alex won't mind me reminding readers of his excellent argument as I could not possibly put it more eloquently:-
"Murders prior to, and after, the canonical five quickly lost their association. I would question whether these five retain their cohesion largely due to their occurrence within the period of great hysteria. I would query Stride's association before raising a more controversial dismissal of Mary Kelly. Again the timing and coverage of this murder seem to provide the central link, although in this instance the press may have played an even more significant role. I would contend whoever killed Kelly, for whatever reason, need not have murdered the other victims but may simply have taken advantage of the opportunity to evade detection by making the crime appear to be the work of Jack the Ripper.
Much Ripper hunting centres around Kelly, the last victim and the most excessively mutilated, but this is perhaps a distortion of history. As has occasionally been proposed, Barnett may well have killed Kelly (for domestic or other reasons) but this does not require the production of elaborate theories to connect him with the other murders. These murders were a major popular spectacle, the reports of which Barnett read to Kelly. It may well be that following a violent outburst resulting in Kelly's death, he sought to conceal his involvement by making her death resemble what he believed a Ripper killing would look like. In doing so, however, drawing on sensational but sketchy reports of extreme mutilations which provided his only knowledge of the crimes, he managed to create the worst example of Ripper excess. Although the police questioned him they were actually looking for the Ripper, and if Barnett could satisfy them he was not connected with the other murders, then he could not have killed Kelly.
In this way the most notorious act of the Ripper, and therefore his defining moment, could be seen to have been largely a press creation. 'Jack' may have stopped kiling for any number of reasons before Kelly's murder but has remained undetected because of it. Such a hypothesis could provide an explanation for the considerable difference between this and the other crimes, with Kelly's mutilation resulting from the partially informed perception of the other murders - her killer being someone whose only familarity with the Ripper crimes came from nothing more than sensational press reports. And therefore, given the the prominent position occupied by Kelly within the Ripper legend, it would not be too implausible to accredit the press as paradoxically being both the creator of Jack the Ripper and also the main impediment to his capture. This would of course mean that throughout the intervening years the search for Jack the Ripper as the murderer of at least five women including Stride and Kelly, has always been doomed to failure."
These wise words of Alex should be read, internalised, and considered carefully. And they are by no means far-fetched or unlikely. Indeed, there greatest wisdom lies in the fact that they encourage the investigator to retain that most important of weapons in his arsenal - an open mind. I will consider some further ramifications of this idea shortly.
This has nothing to do with favoured suspects, and the charge has been levelled at me that I have espoused this idea for that reason. This is not true as I will explain. |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 03:58 am | | I believe in looking at facts. The facts are there isn't a change in the MO or signature between the earlier ripper killings and MJK's death. The differences that some people are labeling as a change in MO or signature are not, unless you extend those words to mean something that they don't mean.
Whenever an alternate theory is proposed people should not expect to be labeled a knave or heretic, but they should expect people to see if it makes any sense. The idea that there was a copycat killer who got the throat slashing and extensive specific mutilations of the same nature down to the same psychotic precision of the previous killings without being responsible for the earlier deaths and then never mutilated again is ludicrous in the extreme.
People can try to paint this as being the target of hostility for daring to challenge a theory that has been unfairly accepted as truth, but it's rather more the truth that theories live and die on whether they make sense. I love new theories. I'm probably the one here most in favor of throwing out all the assumed information and starting from scratch. Remove Stride, add Tabram or a dozen others, throw in people working as a team, conspiracies, I don't care. Heck, make Jack be a trained chimpanzee carrying a straight razor if you want.
But if we went wild and and had to yank names off the accepted victims list to choose just the two that were most similar and most likely to be by the same person, the two that would be left on the list would be Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly, based upon the mutilations and other evidence.
My apologies to Stewart Evans and Alex Chisolm, but I don't accept statements to the contrary on this basic point as "wise" at all, and frankly I think that saying that smacks more of egotism than reasoned logic in support of a position.
There's a difference between having an open mind and ignoring the most obvious, logical and meaningful comparisons in favor of grouping things by incredibly superficial details regardless of how illogical they turn out.
Dan |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 05:36 am | | Hi, Kevin:
To answer your question about any research I have done into the sailor John Anderson, who confessed to being Jack before he died and was buried in Chile, unfortunately, other projects have kept me occupied and I have not been able to pursue that research. A problem with researching him though will be the commonness of his name.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 06:17 am | | We all have our personal ideas regarding the Ripper murders as Rich has so honestly explained above. Why are people interested in these murders? I have been interested in them since the 1950's and have had plenty of time to consider my reasons. The final answer must be the basic answer given by any person who follows an interest or study at a leisurely level - escapism. You read the books, and some of the attendant fiction, and escape to the world of Victorian London where an unknown, mysterious killer is evading all attempts of the forces of law and order to capture him. Single-handedly he is subjecting the greatest capital in the world to a reign of terror.
As a youngster I read of his exploits with awe and the frisson that accompanied the lurid tales. It was, albeit factually a sordid tale, sensationalised and romanticised by authors and was evocative of a bygone age. It was an enduring mystery, probably the world's greatest 'whodunit?' The story of these horrendous murders was read with the clinical detachment of one reading a detective novel, afforded by the passage of time and the fact that they presented no current threat. They were almost out of living memory.
Aspects of the story that held the greatest appeal were the 'Jack the Ripper' letters and the amazing apparent skill of the killer in avoiding detection. And to add appeal to the sensation of these aspects it was necessary to retain as great a tally of victims as possible and to credit the killer with, at least, the most colourful communications.
So it was with a measure of disappointment that, as I studied the case in greater depth, I became doubtful that the actual killer had ever written a letter signed 'Jack the Ripper' and that all the murders commonly accredited to him were all his work. And this was in the days when Druitt was my preferred suspect, years before I ever contemplated writing a book on the subject. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 06:40 am | | Arguments proposed for retaining the 'canonical five' victims can all be objectively countered. Some time back the grandson of a police officer involved in the Ripper hunt raised a point at a meeting of the Cloak and Dagger Club at which Robin Odell was guest speaker. His grandfather had told him that some of the detectives actually working on the Ripper investigation did not think that Kelly was another Ripper victim. So the idea is not a new one and is not restricted to modern theorists. It has been around since the time of the murders. Romantic authors do not want to reduce the Ripper's tally nor de-sensationalise the case in any way.
Also, it has been pointed out that murder was not quite as common in Victorian days as many have assumed, so that it is not likely that more than one murderer would be at work. Sorry, but this is simply not true. For whatever reason 1888 was a bad year. It is known that several killers were at work in London at that time.
For a start, assuming the 'canonical five' as fact, the murders of Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Rose Mylett were by different hands. In mid-August 1888, Leir Richard Bartlett murdered his wife in Poplar by battering her head and cutting her throat. He then attempted suicide by cutting his own throat but was arrested by the police. He hanged at Newgate on 13 November, the day after the Kelly inquest.
Earlier that year, in May, Charles Latham murdered his common law wife in Somers Town, north London, by cutting her throat. On 13 September 1888 Thomas Joseph Haberfield attempted to murder his daughter, Jane, by cutting her throat with a razor in Kensington Road.
Just an hour before Stride was murdered, on the night of 29 September 1888, at around midnight, John Brown killed his wife by cutting her throat a couple of miles away in Westminster. Instead of trying to cover up his deed he gave himself up to the police.
There was the female torso found in the vaults of the New Scotland Yard building under construction on 2 October, 1888, known as the 'Whitehall Mystery'.
So, that there were murders other than those committed by the Ripper in 1888 is not in question. Statistically a person is far more likely to be murdered by someone they know, than by a total stranger. And overwhelmingly they are murdered by a spouse or lover. This fact is borne out by three of the 1888 London cases quoted above, where the murders were detected.
These facts should be borne in mind when considering the Ripper murders in their true context. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 06:59 am | | So, statistically speaking, Kelly is far more likely to have been killed by Joseph Barnett than anyone else. Their domestic situation indicated a stormy relationship, with the resultant separation and the fact that they often 'rowed'. Barnett saw her on the eve of her murder and we have only his word that they were on 'friendly terms'. If she had finally rejected him on that occasion, he may well have returned later and murdered her in a violent domestic dispute, again statistically the most likely scenario for her murder.
Barnett would have known that in the eyes of the police he would be the number one suspect anyway. In those days that sort of murder had only one consequence for the killer - he hanged at the end of a rope. In such a desperate situation he would have only one real way out. To shift the blame for the murder. Although there had been no Ripper killing since 30 September, the story was still in the news and the Ripper was still at large. And in that case we have the situation described above by Alex.
This theory does not involve a 'copycat' murder; it involves an unpremeditated domestic murder being disguised as the work of another killer who was still at large, in order to avoid blame. It is no use to argue that Barnett simply could not have inflicted such horrific mutilations. The history of crime shows that husbands and lovers have been responsible for the most extreme mutilation and dismemberment of their victims in an effort to cover their crime.
But, as Rich correctly says, I merely keep an open mind and do not automatically assume that Kelly was a Ripper victim in the presence of evidence that suggests she may not have been. We simply do not know for sure. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 07:23 am | | I cannot agree with Mr. Norder's statement that:-
"The differences between the MJK killing and the others are superficial. Theories that try to exaggerate them into serious differences that show a different killer at work shouldn't be taken seriously. That's not an insult against everything else that particular researcher may have done, it's just a recognition that some theories don't make sense no matter who puts the forward."
This comment is not an insult, it is merely arrogant. No one denies that Mr.Norder can have his own opinion, but he states that those who argue for the 'non-canonicity' of Kelly should not be taken seriously.
As I have stated, Kelly may well have been a Ripper victim, but equally she may not. We simply do not know for sure, and anyone who states that we do has a pretty closed mind.
The differences between the Kelly murder and the others include the following:-
1. Her age, she was very much younger than all the other victims.
2. Her correct identity has never been positively established.
3. The location of her murder, unlike the others she was murdered indoors, in her own room and in her own bed.
4. Possible different cause of death, she died from the immediate severance of her carotid artery with the attendant arterial spraying. There was no evidence of possible prior strangulation.
5. She had obvious defence wounds indicating a probable initial violent struggle.
6. The excessive mutilation, by far in excess of what had gone before in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes. I am aware of the contra arguments about 'escalation' and 'more time to work uninterrupted' etc. These are valid when arguing for her inclusion and I am fully aware of all the arguments, not ignoring them, which is why I say we cannot be sure.
7. Her heart and not her uterus was apparently missing.
These are not "superficial differences", they are very real and substantial differences. Sure, you may argue this or that idea to address them, but they cannot be dismissed so lightly.
I do not argue for acceptance of Kelly not being a Ripper victim, nor that she should be regarded as definitely being on the list. I argue for an open mind and an objective approach. 'The canonical five' is a term that I do not like, it indicates a closed mind and a failure to consider all the possibilities to be found in the facts as we have them. The Ripper was not brought to justice and we do not have all the facts.
We simply do not definitely know who the 'Ripper' did or did not kill. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 07:46 am | | Hello All.
Interesting thread. There may be some truth in Stewart's explanation as to why people become interested in the Ripper case, but escapism isn't the whole story. What draws most people into the case, I believe, is the fact that the killer has never been identified and has therefore acquired an air mystique. I recall the frenzy that accompanied Peter Sutcliffe's capture in the early 1980s. The initial public interest in him was phenomenal. But then, over a period of months, we learned about his domestic life, his working environment, his upbringing, his accent, even what he ate for breakfast, and fairly soon Sutcliffe became yesterday's news. Today, few people could give a damn about him. But Jack the Ripper was never caught, and, as a consequence, many questions remain unanswered. Had he been identified, he, like Sutcliffe, would have been recognized for the insignificant nobody he was, and any interest in him and his crimes would have receded relatively quickly.
Changing tack slightly, I would agree with Dan that the Kelly killing is clearly part of the Ripper series. Any differences between this crime and the others are easily reconciled by the reality that the murder was committed indoors. Consequently, the killer was able to work undisturbed, giving full expression to his sadistic fantasies.
The injuries which were inflicted upon Mary Kelly were grotesque in the extreme. By the same token, the psychopathology that would facilitate such injuries is exceedingly rare. Such a mentality does not appear out of the ether. It develops incrementally over many years and is often accompanied by increasingly deviant behaviour. The notion, therefore, that someone harboured a grudge against Mary Kelly and then casually cut her to pieces in a manner he believed to be analogous with a sadosexual serial killer is, to my mind, about as nonsensical as the assertion that Joe Barnett was afflicted by echolalia. Open-mindedness is to be admired, but it must be accompanied by rationality and a certain understanding of the issues at hand.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 07:47 am | | Mr. Norder's last post needs specifically addressing. I do not know anything about him, nor of what experience he has on which to base his ideas.
He states, "I believe in looking at facts." That is a good idea, but the trouble is, such facts are capable of alternative explanations and the truth does not always involve the most likely explanation. It's a fact that taken in isolation the most likely offender in the case of Kelly was Barnett. Taken in the full context of the time this may not be the most likely explanation.
Mr. Norder states, "The facts are there isn't a change in the MO or signature between the earlier killings and MJK's death." Take another look Mr. Norder.
And don't tell me what modus operandi and 'signature' are all about. I was in the police force for nearly thirty years and criminal 'MO' was bread and butter for me. We once had a long series of undetected burglaries in town that we had put down to the same offender because of the similarity of MO in all the cases. Finally we arrested two unconnected offenders for the crimes, proving what we had assumed was wrong. Good detectives keep an open mind.
The part of Mr. Norder's post of 03:58 am that I find objectionable is:-
"My apologies to Stewart Evans and Alex Chisholm, but I don't accept statements to the contrary on this basic point as "wise" at all, and frankly I think that saying that smacks more of egotism than reasoned logic in support of a position."
All that "smacks of egotism" are Mr. Norder's words "I don't accept statements to the contrary on this basic point..."
Frankly I couldn't care less what Mr. Norder accepts or does not accept. He is entitled to his own opinion. But insinuations of egotism against those keeping an open mind and accepting the plausibility of alternative explanations are misplaced and insulting. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 08:17 am | | Garry Wroe obviously fails to recognise that what I am saying is that I am not dismissing Kelly as a Ripper victim, nor am I accepting her. Both viewpoints are valid for the reasons I have gone into at length above and which Mr. Wroe has chosen to dismiss as follows:-
"The injuries which were inflicted upon Mary Kelly were grotesque in the extreme. By the same token, the psychopathology that would facilitate such injuries is exceedingly rare. Such a mentality does not appear out of the ether. It develops incrementally over many years and is often accompanied by increasingly deviant behaviour. The notion, therefore, that someone harboured a grudge against Mary Kelly and the casually cut her to pieces in a manner he believed to be analogous with a sadosexual serial killer is, to my mind, about as nonsensical as the assertion that Joe Barnett was afflicted by echolalia."
Sorry Mr. Wroe, but did you read what I wrote? It has nothing to do with 'harbouring a grudge' or 'casually cutting her to pieces.' It has everything to do with the result of a violent domestic dispute and desperately cutting up the victim to shift the blame.
I am not one for 'psycho-babble' and never have been. If Mr. Wroe examines the history of crime it is littered with such cases of first-time murderers carrying out the most horrific mutilation to cover a crime. Buck Ruxton is a prime example, he beheaded his common-law wife, and a maid, peeled off their faces and totally dismembered them in an effort to get rid of the bodies and prevent identification. There are many others, Greenacre, Deeming, Mahon, Crippen and so on.
Mr. Wroe may choose arguments to bolster his chosen 'suspect', Hutchinson, and that is fair enough. However many disagree, as we have seen on these boards, with his conclusions.
In order to explain my own stand, all my works on the case, excepting the first, have been totally objective studies, presenting facts and with no suspect bias. It is a stand that I much prefer as it does not invite the derision and argument that always attends the proposal of a particular suspect.
As such I try to eschew these lengthy and ultimately unresolved arguments, often based on personal opinion.
On the point of why people become interested in the Ripper case, I always include the points made by Mr. Wroe, such as the killer being unidentified (which I believe I stated above anyway) and the mystique that consequently attaches to the case. Those who have seen me interviewed on TV will know that I always include them when asked. But, and this is the point I was making, those ingredients all boil down to escapism, as do most leisurely interests. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:09 am | | Since I came to post on these boards about three years ago, I've pushed Bruce Paley's theory that Barnett was the Ripper because to me it made sense. The more I studied the theory the more openminded I tried to be about it, I took it to pieces and assembled it to my own reasoning. There are two ways to read the theory,-- Barnett was the Ripper, and he was killing to scare Mary back to him,---- or someone else was killing old prostitutes and gutting them, while Joe and Mary were fighting and rowing, and gradually reaching a break-up, which arrived on the evening of Nov 8th, then Barnett, as "Honest, innocent Joe" returned to Miller's Court in the early hours, 03:45 am and killed Mary and tried to make it look like the Ripper's work.
If he returned as the Ripper, guilty of killing the previous victims too, his ploy of frightening Mary back to him had not worked, she had thrown him out very likely with some choice words, so he killed her, and to throw suspicion off "Honest, innocent Joe, he did his Ripper work on her, taking into consideration that this was an indoors job he went further.Only Barnett could know when Mary would settle for the night, only Barnett would know he would not be disturbed, would know the layout of the room, didn't need a light,
would know about the window, the type of fastening to reach for in the dark holding the the door, if there was a key used, only Barnett could have had
it, and only Barnett as the Ripper, or pretending to be the Ripper could have taken Mary's heart. In my opinion, if Barnett wasn't the Ripper, He certainly killed Mary Kelly, of course it cant be proved, but can most anything that matters concerning this case?
Rick |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:26 am | | Hi all,
I figure I'll throw my hat into the ring on this thread. I agree with Stewart on a number of points - primarily the escapism idea. I'll be honest, when I first started getting into the case, I did it because I wanted to solve the damn thing. A lot of us are arm chair detectives (Stewart being a real one, and I'm working on that...) and we enjoy the thrill of a mystery, especially one as famous as this one.
As for the Kelly as a Ripper victim, etc. keeping an open mind is always the best way to handle an investigation. Preconcieved notions and assumptions always manage to bite you in the butt. Take the Beltway Snipers' white van, for instance.
Stewart's list of differences between the Kelly and other Ripper killings MO and signature is very compelling. Since we are all speculating, let me go ahead. It seems to me that if we assume that Kelly was a Ripper victim, there was something about her that set her apart from his previous victims in his mind. Serial killers generally don't change how they do things that drastically without a good reason - and a good reason could be that of all of the victims, he may have known Kelly personally. Whether or not this makes Barnett a better suspect is debatable (isn't everything?), but I think that it would have been necessary for the Ripper to have been comfortable or secure in order to change so drastically his victimology, MO and signature in the Kelly murders.
Anyway, everyone's opinion - no matter how wrong you think it is - is valuable to the discussion.
B |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:41 am | | Hello Stewart.
For some curious reason you appear to believe that my previous post was directed at you personally. It wasn't, and neither was any such impression conveyed.
Neither do I offer opinions from a position of suspect-bias. Contrary to the inference in your previous post, I have never stated it as my belief that Hutchinson was the Whitechapel Murderer. If you or anyone else could provide the evidence which would serve to exculpate Hutchinson (or any other suspect), I'd be the first to congratulate you. My concern is with establishing the truth by way of objective examination.
Glossing over the condescension and innuendo that characterized your latest post, I will pose one simple question. If the murder of Mary Kelly was 'the result of a violent domestic dispute' which led to the killer 'desperately cutting up the victim to shift the blame', why did no-one hear the commotion that would certainly have accompanied such a confrontation?
Regards,
Garry Wroe |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 10:06 am | | Gary,
Noble sentiments, and I for one would certainly like to know the truth. And objective examination is the only way to do it. However, the one certain fact is that we never will know the truth. So despite your concern, it's an impossible dream. Now, that's not to say that individuals can't resolve the case in their own minds to their own satisfaction. Indeed, that forms much of the appeal of the case.
I am not being condescending, I am no better than anyone else.
To answer your question, the domestic could have been a whispered exchange until Barnett lost his temper and the quick but violent death ensued. Indeed, the evidence indicates that it did at some stage become loud and the two witnesses heard the cry of 'murder'. I have dealt with many rowdy domestics in my time and during some of them other family members have remained asleep. I speak with long experience here.
However, despite what you or I say the other will always come up with a counter-argument. Read the archived boards and you will see it time and time again.
The arguments are specious, circular and do not serve to satisfy either of the combatants.
As you have a most decided theory on the case, one that demands the inclusion of Kelly as a Ripper victim, then some of your arguments will be biased and, sometimes, tendentious.
With all good wishes, truly,
Brian, thank you for the kind words.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 11:04 am | | Hi Guys
I’m sorry to see my innocuous post in response to Dan seems to have been followed by a fair amount of bad feeling. Having no intention of becoming embroiled in such futility, I can only echo Stewart’s excellent posts.
I will just say, however, that if certainly including Kelly as a victim of JtR requires regarding the departure from outdoor crime, the departure from strangulation as a means of subduing the victim, and the departure from cutting the throat from left to right as ‘superficial,’ then I am happy to remain a definite doubter.
As I see it, anyone dismissing such a position as ludicrous or nonsensical merely exposes the significant failings in their own approach to these crimes.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 12:52 pm | | Hello Alex.
I was hoping to leave things as they stood but, given your obvious reference to myself in the final paragraph of your last posting, I'll briefly address some of the issues raised therein.
It is by no means unknown for a sadosexual serialist to commit one or two of a predominantly outdoor series of crimes indoors. Sutcliffe perpetrated a minimum of twenty-one attacks on women, twenty of which were outdoors. But the murder of Patricia Atkinson occurred in her flat.
Contrary to your assertion, there was indeed evidence to suggest that Mary Kelly had been subject to strangulation. Dr Bond made reference to ecchymosis and 'clenched fingers', the combination of which is certainly suggestive of partial strangulation.
The direction of the neck incision(s) is indicative only that the killer was positioned to the left of the body rather then the right, as had almost certainly been the case in the earlier crimes. Given that Kelly was lying close to a wall when she was killed, this should hardly come as a surprise. It was long ago established that killers tend to regard subduing injuries as functional, a necessary preamble to what for them is the real motivation for their crimes. Hence subduing injuries are not always consistent in the same killer. To cite the Sutcliffe example again, he subdued virtually all of his victims with hammer blows to the head. But this did not stop him from garrotting two women with a length of rope. This fluctuation in approach explains the difference between the modus operandi and crime scene signature. Whereas signatures tend to be relatively consistent, the MO can and does change. In context of the Whitechapel Murders, the Ripper's MO (the functional injuries) consisted of strangulation and throat cutting. So the fact that Kelly sustained a right-to-left throat incision should not, on its own, be accorded undue importance.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 02:46 pm | | There you go again Garry, assuming that the killer was a 'sadosexual serialist'.
There were no clear signs of strangulation, the ecchymosis accompanied the skin cuts to the front of the neck and were possibly merely caused by the cuts themselves. There was no clear evidence of separate bruising, finger or nail marks which usually accmpany strangulation. Strangulation is also usually accompanied by trauma to the tongue, which often protrudes. However, many of the signs of strangulation could have been obscured by the extreme mutilation.
It is wrong to suggest that there is evidence to indicate that Kelly was strangled. I've never heard anyone suggest this before and neither did any of the medical men at the time. This, indeed, is borne out by the cause of death being given as "severance of right carotid artery". Dr. Bond himself suggested that the killer may have covered Kelly's face with the sheet at the time of the attack but makes no mention of possible prior strangulation. The fact that arterial blood spurted onto the wall also indicates the cut as the fatal stroke and not strangulation. There is no spurting after the heart has stopped beating.
Sutcliffe is not the ideal comparison to draw with the Whitechapel murderer. The 'Ripper' murders occurred over a mere ten weeks, hardly time for an escalation let alone experimenting with different MO's. Sutcliffe had years and many more victims over which to experiment and vary his techniques.
Despite all this, no one is categorically stating that your theories are wrong. They are merely asking you to accept other possibilities. This you seem rather unwilling to do.
Part of your problem is, and this appears to have emerged in some of your other exchanges, you have very fixed ideas and are unwilling to consider those of others, even when they are plausible. It would be interesting to know what experience and specialized knowledge you draw upon to make your pronouncements. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 02:59 pm | | Hello all.
Firstly,I do believe that Kelly was a Ripper Victim and would like to offer a possible explanation as to why her throat injuries appeared to differ from the others.
A possibility is that Kelly may have been in a drunken slumber when her killer struck.This of course meant that there was no subduing to be done.The fact that the killer opened the right corotid artery rather than the left could indicate that Kelly was laying on her right side and therefore the killer adapted accordingly.The overall point I am trying to make is that surely a serial murderer will adapt his methods according the particular restraints imposed or opportunities afforded by the particular situation or enviroment he finds himself in.
So we shouldn't expect one killing to be a carbon copy of a previous one but rather we should look a the broader picture.
Stuart,
Along with others here I find it hard to believe that anybody could become an instant copycat psychopath trying to cover up a murder resulting from a domestic dispute,unless they where that way inclined.
You tell us that these one off butcheries do happen.But in the cases you are aware of,Is such an crime totally out of the blue and do the perpetrators have clean or no criminal records?
Regards,
Mick |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 03:10 pm | | Stewart,
apologies for spelling your name incorrectly in my previous posting.
Mick |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 03:29 pm | | Hi Gary
My last paragraph was not directed to you in particular, but if you have taken it that way, so be it. I stand by what I said. I also stand by what I said in my first paragraph.
The points you raise reflect your interpretation of available evidence. Other interpretations are equally valid and plausible. The fact remains that the various differences between Kelly and previous victims are not superficial, and the questioning of her inclusion among the victims of JtR is neither ludicrous nor nonsensical.
It seems obvious that the best we can hope for in this respect is to agree to disagree. But, just as I do not regard your interpretations of available evidence as ludicrous or nonsensical, I know mine are not.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 03:35 pm | | Mick,
The main issue that I have with the idea that Kelly was "in a drunken slumber" is that there were defense wounds on her body.
Dr. Bond wrote in his postmortem "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds. The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in. long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand & forearm showing the same condition."
Those are defense wounds...she put her hands/arms/forearms up (or reached up for her neck, exposing the backs of her hands) while she was being attacked. So I don't think she was passive while being killed.
Then again, I may be completely misreading the defensive wounds, and they could have been part of the mutilations. But from what I have seen - albeit I'm not a pro yet - those are more indicative of defense wounds.
B |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 03:39 pm | | Myckk,
I hadn't noticed that you spelt my name wrongly.
There is nothing wrong in believing that Kelly was a Ripper victim, you are with the majority on these boards and I am not saying you are wrong.
You have given your views on how the murder might have been committed. Your comments are valid but that is not the point. We will never know here who is right and who is wrong. That having been said, I do not forcefully commit myself either way, to do so is to close off other options and possibilities. But I have said all this before.
Again this argument has nothing to do with being a 'carbon copy', which it most certainly wasn't, the argument proposed is that if Barnett was the one-off killer of Kelly then he may have tried to make it look like a Ripper killing. Certainly the majority of those involved believed it was.
These desperate killers do indulge in the most awful mutilation to cover their crimes, and, yes, they often have no previous criminal record. The cases are there on record. It's not a case of becoming an instant psychopath, it's a case of self-preservation and desperate measures, one of the strongest of humnan traits. I am telling you that these one-off butcheries do frequently occur in the annals of crime. If you are interested you can research them.
But really, I think that we have all given our own opinions here, I do not have the time to continue such lengthy debates and we must agree to disagree.
BBFN
Stewart |
Author: spaceyram
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 03:55 pm | | Stewart Evans
I could not agree more with you in respect to
Kelly possibly being a victim of Barnett not the
ripper. You pointed out several differences that
are obvious to those who aren't totally closed-
minded and most obviously have not had the experience that some of "us" have had with
the handling of cases at hand, not just trying
to figure it out from books based on therories
by others.Those who have never experienced a
real "GUT" feeling nor had other
persons lives in their hands cannot possibly know what it is like to try to solve a crime and get the perp off the streets. And closing a case may take years but it never really leaves you,
but more important than anything you need to be
sure you got the right person, guesses don't count We are all
entitled to an opinion, that's true, but persons
with class, education and experience must look
at all circumstances, not just those that could
fit. It totally ticks me off when persons who
cannot claim the atributes required for
perfection, seem to think that their opinion is the only opinion. Well it is not!!
Another item I would like to point out re MO
differences on Kelly is the following:
The scene was far bloodier and messy than any
of the others, regardless of how many victims.
Mary Jane was multilated beyond recognition
as if there was a different vendetta with her
murder
The murderer spent a lot more time with this victim without worry of interruption
And finally, It appears that Mary Jane Kelly was the victim, not just some prostitute, It seems very personal.
I would finally like to ask, who the hell died and
made Mr Norder, the world's foremost authority
on Jack the Ripper and criminals in general?
Love your work, your downright honesty and
your knowledge & talent that we are so fortunate
to be a part off on this fabulous Site JtR.
Regards
spaceyram |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 06:15 pm | | Hello Brian,
I wasn't implying that Kelly slept throughout the attack,I was merely saying that unlike the other victms the killer had no need to subdue her as she may have been in a deep alcohol induced sleep.
I agree that the wounds found on Kelly's hands and arms strongly suggest that a struggle took place.
It is possible that Kelly awoke as her attacker drew the knife across her throat.She then may have put up a fight that was frenzied but short lived.
Regards,
Mick |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 08:22 pm | | Hi all,
Thank you to both Alex and Stewart for their reasoned and sensible posts. I take note that no one disputes the facts they cite in support of their position that Kelly may not have been a victim of the Whitechapel murderer.
What Alex, Stuart, and least of which, I have been saying is that it is possible that Kelly was murdered by a different person than the "Ripper" based upon the differences in both modus operandi and signature. None of us, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that Kelly could not have been a victim of the Whitechapel murderer - only that she may not have.
I have, over the years, been astounded by those who resort to insult simply because someone suggests a different interpretation of the facts. As Stewart has suggested, it almost seems that if you suggest reducing the number of victims attributed to "Jack the Ripper" you are somehow damaging his lore and therefore personally insulting some of the case's afficianados.
The scenario that Alex and Stewart have mentioned, that Barnett may have murdered Kelly in a fit of rage and later mutilated her to make it look like a Ripper crime, is plausible. Admittedly, this is based on speculation based on the facts of the case - as is Kelly's inclusion on the Ripper victim list by others.
If either Alex or Stewart insisted that Kelly could not have been a Ripper victim, I would have the same argument with them that I have now against Mr. Norder. They have not espoused that position.
It is my view that Kelly's murder is an open question. Obviously there are many who disagree. There is no need, however, to be disagreeable.
Rich |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:06 pm | | Hello Stewart.
In answer to your question, my academic background encompasses psychology, criminology and statistics. As such, I know a little about the psychodynamics of criminal behaviour.
As for my position on Kelly, I am convinced on an evidential basis that she was a Ripper victim. Contrary to the claims of some, this does not mean that I am intransigent. It merely means that, if you or anyone else wish to convince me otherwise, you need only present a cogent, cohesive case based on solid evidence. Hitherto, I've read a lot of ifs, buts and maybes, as well as a highly implausible scenario involving a taciturn domestic dispute, but absolutely nothing of a concrete nature.
I also have a problem with those who, without a single shred of evidence, cast the most appalling allegations at Joe Barnett. Perhaps I'm misguided, but in all my years of researching the Ripper case I found nothing to indicate that Barnett was anything other than a decent, hard-working man. On top of this, Barnett was clearly decimated by the loss of Kelly. In a sense, then, Barnett might be deemed a Ripper victim too. Consequently, I make no apologies for my refusal to adopt the herd mentality and denigrate a man who, until the evidence indicates otherwise, deserves a great deal better.
And yes, I do refer to Jack the Ripper as a sadosexual serialist. Given that his crimes evinced an unmistakable sexual component, and that he inflicted unnecessary sharp-force post-obit mutilations (indicating sadistic intent), the term is entirely appropriate.
Although it may come as a surprise, I'm fully aware of the physical concomitants of strangulation. And whereas there is no definitive evidence on the strangulation issue, the clenched fist and ecchymosis render it at least possible. And, just to correct an evident misapprehension, the presence of strangulation should not be taken to infer death by strangulation. Annie Chapman, for example, was clearly strangled into unconsciousness (as is apparent from her swollen tongue and floridity in the neck and facial tissues), but her heart was most certainly pumping when her throat was cut, as witness the arterial blood spray pattern found on the fence adjacent to her neck. Given that a similar pattern was found on the wall close to where Kelly's neck would have been when she was killed, it should have been obvious that I was in no way suggesting that death had occurred by strangulation. Indeed, this is why I referred to 'partial strangulation'.
Contrary to your assertion, Stewart, I did not say that the Ripper had taken to 'experimenting with different MOs'. I did, however, state that the MO is functional. I also made it clear that, on occasion, it can be adapted to suit the exigencies of a given situation. Since Kelly was lying close to the wall at the time of the initial assault, it seems perfectly in keeping for her killer to have inflicted the throat wounds from her left. What would have been the point of manoeuvring her away from the wall for the sole purpose of inflicting a left-to-right throat incision? The direction of the wound would have been of no importance to the killer. All that mattered was despatching Kelly so that he could set about the mutilations proper. Such men are not automatons, and their crimes are not the equivalent of painting by numbers. They will adapt their behaviour, their victim selection, their stalking grounds and so forth as and when necessary. This is what makes them so difficult to identify.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:29 pm | | Stewart wrote above of Mr. Wroe:
"Part of your problem is, and this appears to have emerged in some of your other exchanges, you have very fixed ideas and are unwilling to consider those of others, even when they are plausible."
You're telling me! Have a look under the "Hutchinson" thread below. When I start criticizing his thinking close to the mark, Mr. Wroe flatly accuses me of being a liar, and that is that.
David |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:35 pm | | I'm rather amused in the imprecations against egoism on the part of the Ripperologist above. Want to know the truth? It's going to take a human subject to solve this case, and that subject is going to need quite a healthy ego to do it. I'd like to remind that Socrates was a quintessentially selfish man. How can you believe there could ever be an ego-free solution to this case?
Your Uncle,
David |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:39 pm | | How sure can we be, really, that MJ wasn't strangled first, like most of the other victims? Mutilations were very extensive to the throat and face.
David |
|
|
|
|
